Pages

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

May is about over, so it's time for a post. There are plenty of subjects to cover, but what if we look at another descendant (possible, stepson), William Jenkins Worth?

---

General Worth is of interest, for several reasons. He was born in 1794 to Quaker parents. His military experience began with the War of 1812 (next Beacon theme) where he served as an aide to Winfred Scott. He was wounded but continued his military career.

Later, William was assigned to head the military department of Texas. He died in San Antonio in 1849. Fort Worth, among other places, is named after him.

---

Being brief, William's forebears were William Worth and Sarah Macy. Both Worth and Macy were of Nantucket families (with Gardner/Coffin, et al).

Aside: John, son of William and Sarah, who was a forebear of the General, was married several times. The first wife was Miriam Gardner, a granddaughter of Thomas and Margaret. Which of John's sons was the forebear of the General? Some say John, Jr. whose mother was Dorcas Smith. Once we get this figured out, we'll update the descendants list.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

For this post, though, Nathaniel's tale (Maypole of Merry Mount) is the thing that we need to recall. Seems that some took their new-found freedom a bit too far. Oh, ever look at some college freshmen these days (as in, there being no 'in loco parentis')? The Johns, and others, did not like the 'so called' debauchery of the Merry Mount'rs.

The reason to bring this up here is that Rev White (uncle, of sorts) seems, from reading his stuff, to have characterized some at Cape Ann thusly. What? I always wondered about his motivation for this.

--

In short, here was a guy (Rev John), across the pond, casting judgment against a group who were braving the elements, attempting to survive, and trying to produce for the "fat cats" back home. Ah, just like modern office workers and managers who drive production workers by computer (sheer idiocy, in the 'optimization' context, when we think of the 'near zero' aspects). So, those back at home were expecting more production. Ah, again, modern views of management that seem to think of obtaining something from nothing (very much analogous to hoping for a perpetual motion affair -- look, folks, all types of colonialism are just that -- Steve, you didn't pay attention? -- suicides related to modes for producing your product?).

In other words, arm chair quarter- backing (17th century style).

As history tells us, the expectations (as in mis-planning) were way off base. Yeah, blame the workers. Too, New England did produce when conditions were right, for a long time.

--

In actuality, as said before, Thomas' character can be seen, in part, in his kids and progeny. Enuf said, for now, on that.

--

So, Thomas was not a Merry Mount'r. We'll have to attempt to sketch the proper picture, as I have not seen the tale told yet. I've thought up plenty of scenarios, though, that could have unfolded in those times.

Nathaniel (cousin that he is) did cover Roger (see, as well, Poor Roger gets no respect -- ggp, by the way). We ought to do something analogous in some postings, here (for Thomas, these will be under the Backbone category). Perhaps, the house deal was a practice piece.

Remarks:

05/02/2016 -- Recently, I caught a PBS conversation. The author being interviewed mentioned this occasion about which Nathaniel wrote. We need to take another look, this year, with regard to the current situations.

11/06/2013 -- While working on the next Beacon issue, I ran across some books. The one by Staloff was timely; imagine, I was wondering why the backbone series? Has the talented set ever allowed the lessors to have some semblance of a good life? Oh, you say yes? Winthrop, et al, were against this from the beginning. The stalwart of what could be (or could have been)? Thomas Gardner, of course.

11/27/2012 -- Let's itemize what we know, re-iterate some basics, and the proceed constructively.

09/21/2012 -- Another Backbone post. As an aside, we didn't hear Conant talk about finding a starving people. Rather, they were doing well, locally. Actually, they were quite rambunctious.